Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] net: phy: add support for disabling autonomous EEE

[Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@broadcom.com>]

On 4/6/26 06:56, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> "Autonomous EEE" works for me (obviously). It kinda describes what
>> happens (the PHY acts autonomously) without being tied to a specific
>> vendor's marketing name.
>>
>> That said, I feel Russell's argument that it doesn't type well. But
>> even after some walks in the woods I wasn't able to come up with a
>> better name yet.
> 
> Yes, naming is hard.
> 
>> I don't think there's a meaningful use case for letting users choose
>> between the two. Or is there?
> 
> This has come up before, in other context. PTP is one example, where
> both the MAC and the PHY can implement it. Ideally, you want it to
> happen at the PHY, it gives higher accuracy. But there are systems
> where the PHY implementation is somewhat broken, and the MAC PTP gives
> better results. So defaulting to PHY PTP is not always the best
> option.
> 
> I would expect IEEE 802.3 EEE, with both the MAC and PHY cooperating
> is better than just PHY level EEE, the system as a whole has a better
> picture of what is going on, so using 802.3 EEE should be the
> preference/default. But are we going to run into oddball systems where
> autonomous EEE is actually better than using a somewhat broke MAC?

That is almost a guarantee given, there will be a broken MAC, and there 
will be a need for enabling EEE at the PHY level because the power 
savings can be significant. Until that happens however, I would agree 
with using the global "--set-eee" without differentiating, and if we 
need to disable MAC-level EEE and switch to PHY-level EEE then we cross 
that bridge when necessary.
-- 
Florian